Ridiculous Sting. Another unscrupulous Parking Company.

Coupon-mad

Go for it! Under OTHER, as a PDF upload. Make sure the little 'bin' icon appears.

DorianWolf

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Go for it! Under OTHER, as a PDF upload. Make sure the little 'bin' icon appears.

I wanted to provide you with an update on my case in the hope of receiving some more invaluable advice.

As expected, I've just received the PPC 'evidence', but I'm feeling dispirited about a lack of obvious points to rebut, if indeed there are any that are strong enough to be found.

I've only been really been able to see that one of their photographs, of the yellow signage, is now in a slightly different position to one of my photographs that I took of the site. Their license agreement and payment data is redacted here and there, but I don't know if these are enough for points of rebuttal.

Also, their response states that a grace period is in place, but does not give any specific clue of the time of that allowed period, only that the driver failed to do this.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dd0zgqnofmwaybq/POPLA%20REBUTTAL%201.0.pdf?dl=0

The evidence does not in any part refer to my first POPLA appeal point that no contract was offered by MB - as it's a different company on sign.

The PPC has in addition provided copies of the original NTK, the first stage appeal and rejection letter which I don't think it's worth showing you those again at this point.

They've also included new photographs of the yellow signage locations and close ups, both sides of the entrance sign, a close up of the pay meter (showing Bransby WIlson logo).

Also included are the payment data sheet for the day in question, and their licensing agreements with various redactions, including 2g which states that the client has the authority to instruct cancellation of any PCN issued on this site. Not sure why they have redacted this?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4a9fhdwkg57wq2y/license%20aggreement.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/zds21cyq3v52ao2/License%20agreement%202.pdf?dl=0

Hope that you can provide some guidance before I try to rubbish their evidence.

Thanks again.

DorianWolf

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Go for it!

I'm sorry to hound you C-mad, but if you have a spare moment, would you mind taking a look over my POPLA rebuttal?

I really trust your judgement and knowledge.

Thanks very much.

Coupon-mad

The evidence does not in any part refer to my first POPLA appeal point that no contract was offered by MB - as it's a different company on sign.

So briefly remind POPLA of that, and mention again the POPLA code of the one already decided, with the same signs (including yellow signs) which were deemed inadequate to provide a driver with any certainty about the party offering a contract.

Mention too, that even the PDT machine (the point of sale) has a Bransby Wilson logo, not a Minster Baywatch one, so any driver would have no idea about this parking operator M/Baywatch.

Add that the so called contract is signed by illegible squiggles in 2015 and says it runs for a 3 month period, and there is nothing to show this was a rolling contract, or was renewed, or continues into perpetuity.

Also included are the payment data sheet for the day in question, and their licensing agreements with various redactions, including 2g which states that the client has the authority to instruct cancellation of any PCN issued on this site. Not sure why they have redacted this?

To stop you knowing you can try a landowner cancellation, I suppose.

DorianWolf

Coupon-mad wrote: »

So briefly remind POPLA of that, and mention again the POPLA code of the one already decided, with the same signs (including yellow signs) which were deemed inadequate to provide a driver with any certainty about the party offering a contract.

Sorry to ask this of you on a Friday evening Coupon-Mad, but do you think my POPLA rebuttal, below, is sufficient and written well enough to now be put on to the portal?

"Reading the so called ‘evidence’ from the parking company, I would briefly like to remind you that it does not refer to my first and main appeal point, which is that no contract was offered by Minster Baywatch - as it is a different company on the sign.

I would therefore also like to mention the POPLA Verification Code 4111647007 of the case which has already been decided, with the same signs (including yellow signs) which were deemed inadequate to provide a driver with any certainty about the party offering a contract.!

Even their evidence photo of the PDT machine (the point of sale) has a Bransby Wilson logo, not a Minster Baywatch one, so any driver would have no idea about this parking operator Minster Baywatch.

Also, within their substantially redacted ‘evidence’ the so called contract is signed by illegible squiggles back in 2015. It says it runs for a three month period, and there is nothing to show this was a rolling contract, or was renewed, or continues into perpetuity.

The ‘evidence’ neither adequately refers to my third appeal, which requested the Parking Company provide specific details about their grace period. While they did confirm that they do indeed have a grace period, they gave no times, which were asked of them as a matter of considerable importance. Therefore, the driver was given insufficient time to assess the signage and decide whether they wished to stay, or leave the car park."

Thank you so much.

Coupon-mad

Looks perfect, get it submitted!

DorianWolf

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Looks perfect, get it submitted!

Hello again everybody,

I have just received the final POPLA decision regarding my appeal, of which stating that I am massively disappointed doesn't even come close.

My feelings are that the assessor Sophie Taylor has not even read the facts of my case, or seem to taken any notice. She has certainly not acted on the points I included and the assessment rational does not even allude to the evidence I provided.

Here is the following 'rational' -

Decision - Unsuccessful

Assessor Name - Sophie Taylor

Assessor summary of operator case - The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the parking fee covering visit duration was not paid in full.

Assessor summary of your case - The appellant’s case is that there was no contract offered by the parking operator, in addition to noncompliance with the British Parking Association Code of Practice.

Assessor supporting rational for decision -

Throughout the appeal to both POPLA and the parking operator, the registered keeper has not identified who was driving the vehicle on the day in question. As such, I must consider whether the operator has complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 when issuing the PCN, in order to transfer liability for the PCN from the driver to the registered keeper.
I have reviewed the PCN issued to the registered keeper, and I am satisfied it complies with the requirements of PoFA 2012. As such, liability has transferred to the registered keeper.

When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “All users must pay the appropriate fee for the duration of their visit… A Parking Charge of £100 will be issued to any unauthorised vehicle, vehicles not displaying a valid pay and display ticket”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 15:37, and exiting at 15:50, totalling a stay of 13 minutes. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate that it did not receive payment for the vehicle to park. As such, the PCN has been issued.

The appellant states that there was no contract offered by the parking operator, in addition to noncompliance with the British Parking Association Code of Practice. As outlined above, I am satisfied a contract was offered and accepted by the driver based off the evidence provided by the operator. I note he feels there has been noncompliance with the British Parking Association Code of Practice, however, the appellant has not been clear how this affected the driver ability to comply with the contract so I cannot consider this to impact the validity of the PCN.

Upon review of all the information given, I am satisfied the evidence shows a parking contract was formed, and that the driver failed to comply with it as they did not purchase sufficient time to cover their stay. The operator has complied with PoFA 2012, and the liability for the charge has now passed to the registered keeper. As such, I conclude the PCN has been issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal.

beamerguy

DorianWolf ....... I think that assessor has come up before for making daft decisions.

POPLA is now an outdated dinosaur. Not binding on you

Purplepiggy

Letter received today, also in Blossom street car park. Drove into car park at 8:55, parked up in the same space as the OP, searched for change and then got out of the car. Proceeded to the Pay & Display machine. Paid for 1 hour parking and displayed ticket in car. Returned to car an hour later. Got in the car, started the engine. Checked my phone for address of my next meeting, inputted details into sat nav and then left the car park. NTK states arrival was at 8:55 and exit was at 10:07, surely this is not enough of a grace period either the side of the hour paid for? Never received one of these before and was totally shocked considering the parking fee was paid. Any advice gratefully received.
Also please note it was a family member who received the letter, although they are the keeper, the driver was not the keeper.

Umkomaas

1. Please read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1 which will take you through the initial stages of how this should be dealt with.

2. If after reading the sticky (and that will take quite some time - have a notepad and make notes as you go along) you need further advice, you must start a new thread of your own please.

3. The grace period does not include time to update your sat nav, it's to leave the car park, so you'll have to very carefully research and then describe why the grace period should apply.

4. Unfortunately, this case belongs to your family member as the registered keeper, and while you can do all the work, everything must be done in your family member's name. In the context of the liability of your family member, you need to research Keeper Liability - the sticky will direct you through this element.